KQ writes:
I'm not being a wag; I'm being serious when I say
that
if Bill Clinton (and other articles) fit into one category only, then we're recreating subpages.
Stevertigo writes:
I think this is all off the point. We all in good faith understand what reasonable people could be objecting to - namely articles like teabagging, buttplugs, creampies, the list goes on...
Is it really so unclear what I'm saying? The idea of what is "sexually explicit" has at various times included piano legs, women's ankles, and Elvis Presley's hips. In quite a few places on the planet, it still includes women's ankles, and I'm sure it would include Elvis Presley's hips as well. For an example in the opposite direction, Robert Mapplethorpe considered his work "erotic," yet many (many) people consider it "pornographic." Should I point you to the obscenity trials for James Joyce's _Ulysses_? Anyway, tagging articles with commentary of that sort--"sexually explicit," etc.--is the same as imposing your cultural POV onto them; in other words, it is the same as declaring the wikipedia a developed nation's middle-class anglocentric-pedia. Exactly how is that of benefit to us?
kq
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com